And I say yes on 37 !!!!!!! Here is why- it is a long read but I wrote it for friends who are parents at my daughter's school who know people who work in the industry.
Dear Prop 37 undecided voters,
As an older mom, and as a scientist, plant breeder and organic farmer, I would like to share my perspective on Proposition 37 with you.
The fight that I see going on regarding the labeling of GMOs reminds me quite a bit of a fight on the playground: anger created by bullying, resulting in name calling and no end of drama and hysterics. Just the sort of thing we as the grown ups are continually called upon to stop. How do we create a basis for healing and moving on and growing and learning from this discord?
When the first scientists figured out how to harness the capacity of particular bacteria and viruses to cut genetic material from one species and then insert it into another, many wild hopes were raised within the scientific community. I recall hearing how all the streetlights would be replaced by trees whose leaves would have the bioluminescence of fireflies spliced into them- imagine all the electricity to be saved! There were so many exciting possibilities. And there still are. Many a new start up was created which sought venture capital funding, some in the area of pharmaceuticals and others in agriculture. At this very beginning stage of the biotechnology industry a terrific rift was formed between those that saw the enormous power of this new technology as something to be very careful with indeed, and those that needed to get products to market as quickly as possible to fund their start-up business ventures.
The biggest surprise players in this initial schism were the business people in the largest ag chemical companies. They appeared to use their influence within the government to circumvent the regulatory agencies (the EPA and FDA) by making the wild claim that this technology was no different from classical plant breeding and thus required no safety testing whatsoever (other than any they chose to do within their own corporations and which were not scrutinized in a public forum). Many of the scientists within this new industry were horrified by this position, but were told that the products had to get to market to fund future research. This decision to resist any and all regulatory testing allowed a number of GMO crop plants to enter the marketplace very quickly. It allowed a great amount of funding to flow to scientists who were thrilled to be doing such advanced work. But this blatant disregard for testing--all the while claiming the GMO plants were safe--backfired, and outside the U.S. the doors were quickly shut to these new varieties of crops created by genetic engineers. I asked an executive at one of these firms, who was a scientist how they would justify the damage to the reputation of all scientists when the general public found out how they had been lied to. The answer was this: "If we do not lie we will not get funding. Without funding we will not be able to do our work. Our work is the most important way to save the world."
The rift formed by business decisions made in the 1980's has developed into the brawl that we witness today. Both sides have become inflamed and each side has valid points. One of the greatest difficulties for me is that I know a number of great scientists who work in this industry who have not only agile minds, but the best of intentions. Some are parents of my daughter's friends at school. The scientists doing this work all believe that their products are safe- they had been told by their professors that all the safety testing was already done back in the 80's. These scientists claim that all these hysterical calls for labeling are from the same kind of people who don't believe in science or global warming. They feel maligned and frightened that their industry that they believe holds so much potential for scientific promise will be thwarted by activist fools.
The people calling for labeling are a much larger group. Before the over 40 million dollars worth of ads against it, some 70% of people polled were in favor of Proposition 37. Within this group are people who suffer from allergies (or whose children suffer from them), who simply want all the information possible on labels. There are people who for religious reasons object to the mixing of kingdoms (animal genes mixed in with plants, etc.), which is an issue for a variety of faiths. There are the people who distrust the technology of genetic manipulation in general. There are the people who only distrust the products of this technology that have not undergone public transparent testing. There are people who worry about the environmental impacts that they feel are not being addressed by the industry. They all want to just be able to decide if they want to buy these products or not.
The fear of the people employed in the genetic engineering of food crops is that labeling will effectively shut down their industry, because, when polled, more than half of people claim they do not want to eat food that is the result of genetic manipulation. They view labeling as branding the word "Frankenfood" over the products of their labors and their devotion to working for a better future.
And so how do we as voters begin to solve this problem created by business decisions made over 25 years ago?
The place I suggest we turn to is The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have been grappling with this schism within the scientific community since the early 1990's. They recommend that a thorough and transparent system of testing be started immediately so that all the allegations of safety or the lack thereof can be settled. Openly and thoroughly. They support labeling of all GMO products.
I think that labeling is the way to achieve a peace. Those that value a bargain and who trust the industry will be fine with purchasing these products. Those that want to know will be able to do so. It is simple and it does not destroy any farmer or this new industry that is still just forming. It will encourage those businesses who rushed products to market prematurely to sit down with the scientists who called for safety testing and come up with a plan to test the products.
Thank you for considering this issue with such care,
= new reply since forum marked as read
